Case Law Update February 2022
Updated 2-28-22
| Soya v. Health First, Inc./CCMSI, (2-21-22) (Fla. 1st DCA 2/2022) Compensability/Arising Out Of (Jamey Rodgers/Bill Rogner) The DCA reversed and remanded the JCC’s Order denying compensability. The claimant did not know why she fell at work. The JCC’s denial tracked Valcourt’s analysis and denied benefits, finding “an accident is compensable under Valcourt only if the employment necessarily exposed the claimant to conditions that would substantially contribute to the risk of injury to which the Claimant would not normally be exposed during her non-employment life.” The DCA found that Valcourt’s increased hazard analysis only applies where there is a contributing cause outside of the employment. The court cited the 2012 Ross decision’s language that “compensation shall be payable regardless of fault” and states “clumsiness is covered.” They rejected the E/C’s allegation the claimant was not “actively engaged” in her employment, finding such an argument would result in claimants alleging tort claims against employers when they are on premises, but not literally performing work. Judge Bilbrey, one of two dissenters in Valcourt, wrote a concurrence noting that this case, and last week’s Silberberg opinion, resolve confusion over Valcourt’s meaning. Workplace slip and falls remain compensable, as long as they arise out of employment. Silberberg’s “any exertion” while at work standard suffices to make a fall for unknown reasons compensable, absent some purely personal cause or identified competing idiopathic or pre-existing condition. The premises rule was not abrogated by Valcourt, and per the concurrence, specifically overruled only four pre-1994 arising out of cases. Click here to view Opinion Arrez Brothers Carpentry, LLC/Norguard, ___ So.3d ___ (Fla.1st DCA 2/23/22) Medical Benefits/Emergency Services The DCA affirmed the JCC’s Order awarding “many benefits,” but reversed and remanded as to the award of hospital and radiology treatment. Nothing in the record showed that the treatment was taken with the requisite intent to determine whether an emergency medical condition existed, per their 2012 Cespedes decision and F.S. s. 395.002(8)(a), (9) (defining “emergency medical condition” as a condition with “acute symptoms of sufficient severity” where “absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in . . . serious impairment to bodily functions”). Although the hospital records ruled out a fracture, nothing stated the fracture would have seriously impaired bodily functions had the treatment not been immediate. Click here to view Opinion Silberberg v. Palm Beach County School Dist./York Risk, ___ So.3d___ (Fla.1st DCA 2/16/2022 Arising out of Element of Compensability The First DCA affirmed the JCC’s finding that the claimant did not establish that his sitting for work was anything more than an incidental trigger of his idiopathic (leg fell asleep) response and subsequent fall and femur fracture. The Three Judge Panel held that the claimant’s industrial accident was not compensable because he failed to show the accident and/or injury had ‘occupational causation.’ However, the First DCA, over 12 pages of the opinion discussed its previous decision in Valcourt-Williams, specifically the ‘arising out of’ element of compensability and attempted to expand upon the decision through a focused attempt to clarify idiopathic, arising out of and compensability but provided confusing ammunition for both sides on the issue that results in some odd language concerning “work related exertion” that will have to be sorted out through additional case law. Click here to view Opinion |